Skip to main content

Bounce Of Cheque Issued For Insurance Premium Is Breach Of Promise, Insurance Company Not Bound To Indemnify Owner Of Offending Vehicle


In FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2018, SBI Insurance Company vs Madhubala & Others, a first appeal filed by SBI Insurance Company against an order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal wherein the appellants were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 11,93,000 to the family of a carpenter who died in an accident with a bus that was being driven on the wrong side.

The owner and driver of the offending bus did not resist the claim petition. The insurer challenged the award only on the ground that because the policies of insurance issued by the insurer of the offending
vehicle were cancelled by the Insurance Company after the occurrence of the incident on account of bouncing of the cheques issued towards premium, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the Insurance Company has right to recover the compensation from owner of offending vehicle, paid to the claimants, towards satisfaction of the award passed by the Tribunal.

The owner of the vehicle resisted the contention of the insurer on the grounds that on the date of accident  neither the cheque of premium fees issued by the owner of vehicle was dishonoured, nor the policy of insurance was cancelled by the insurer of the offending bus. He submitted that after occurrence of the accident for the first time, the Insurance Company issued letter to the owner on and thereby cancelled the policy of insurance, therefore as the policy of insurance was subsisting on the date of accident the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the third party. Therefore, the insurer of the offending vehicle has no right to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

The Bombay High Court held that the contract of insurance in between owner of the offending vehicle and insurer, includes reciprocal promises by both the parties. By issuing cheque of amount of premium, the owner of the offending vehicle promises to pay consideration for contract of indemnity and in lieu of consideration of premium amount, the insurer promises to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle in case of liability of owner to pay compensation for accident. Thus, when on account of bouncing of cheque issued towards premium of policy of insurance, the owner of the offending vehicle committed breach of his promise, the insurer of the offending vehicle is not bound to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances, as insurer was liable to pay compensation to the third party, it has right to recover the paid amount from owner of the offending vehicle.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more